Maintenance during Iddat

Under Muslim law, the wife’s right to be maintained by her husband is absolute. A divorced
wife can claim maintenance from the former husband only for that period during which she is
observing her Iddat. The duration of Iddat on divorce is three menstruation periods or, if
pregnant, till delivery of the child. The former husband’s liability extends only up to the
period of iddat, not beyond that. Whereas A Muslim wife after the death of the husband is not
entitled to claim any maintenance out of her late husband’s estate as she would herself
become an heir to it. The underlying reason is that the liability of maintaining the wife is only
to be dealt with by the husband and not on by any subsequent heirs. If she has not received
her dower i.e., Mehr nor has she renounced it, she would be the first charge from the late
husband’s estate.
Maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC
This section deals with maintenance. Section 125 of CrPC states that if a person has sufficient
means and still decides to neglect his/her wife/husband, children, or parents, s/he shall be
liable to pay an amount to maintain them. The term ‘wife’ includes a ‘divorced wife’. Section
125 is applicable also to a divorced Muslim wife. Here, the wife should be unable to take care
of herself financially or maintain herself. The amount of maintenance in this law by several
judgments is to be such as to allow the person to "maintain" the standard of living they had in
their marriage, and not bare survival. The point of the present discussion is that neither this
section restricts itself to a particular religion nor does it impose a time limit within which the
maintenance is to be paid.
Section 127(3) provides that the order of maintenance in favour of a divorced wife shall be
cancelled, and such woman shall not be entitled to maintenance under the following
circumstances:
 Where the divorced woman has remarried
 Where such woman has received the whole sum due to her on divorce under any
customary or personal law, and
 Where the woman, after obtaining a divorce from her husband, has voluntarily
surrendered the right to maintenance.

Mohd. Ahmad Khan v. Shah Bano Begum

Shah Bano was a woman aged 62 who was divorced by her husband in 1978 and was
subsequently denied maintenance. She had five children too and she was unable to support
herself and the children. So, she filed a case against her husband for maintenance in the court
of Judicial Magistrate under section 125 of CrPC claiming Rs. 500 as maintenance. She was
granted maintenance of only Rs. 25 with which she was not happy and went to the high court
claiming higher maintenance.

She was granted a maintenance Rs. 179.20 with which her husband was not happy, and he
appealed to the Supreme Court against this order. His main contention was that since the
dissolution of marriage had taken place, she cannot claim maintenance as under Muslim law,
which stated that once a woman ceases to be a wife of her husband, she is not entitled to
maintenance. And the maintenance of the woman is the responsibility of her husband only
during the iddat period. In the present case, Mr Khan paid the dower at the time of the iddat
period and thus claimed that his wife is not entitled to any maintenance.
The Supreme Court bench of five judges headed by Justice Chandrachud upheld the decision
of the High Court. The court gave a landmark judgement by declaring that a husband would
be liable to pay maintenance to his wife even after iddat if the wife is unable to support
herself under section 125 of the CrPC and if she is able to support herself the maintenance
would stop post iddat.

The Supreme Court also interpreted Quran and stated that there is no conflict between
the Muslim Personal law and section 125 of CrPC (as claimed by Mr Khan) as even under
Muslim law, a husband is supposed to maintain her divorced wife. Further, the Supreme
Court gave the argument that even if it is assumed that there is a conflict between Muslim
Personal law and section 125 of the CrPC, the law of the CrPC shall prevail because it is a
secular law and is at a higher pedestrian as compared to any personal law. As CrPC is a
secular law, it could be applied to any person irrespective of their religion. Justice
Chandrachud stated -

“It would be incorrect & unjust to extend the rule of maintenance under Muslim Law to the
cases in which the divorced wife is unable to maintain herself, so if the divorced wife is able
to maintain herself, the husband’s liability ceases with the expiration of the period of Iddat,
but if she is unable to maintain herself after the period of Iddat, she is entitled to have
recourse to Section 125 of Cr. P.C.” 

Thus, the Supreme Court settled the law on maintenance of Muslim women by declaring that
a divorced woman is entitled to claim compensation even after iddat if she satisfies two
grounds -

1. She is not able to support herself

2. She has not remarried.

the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 came into existence.

Maintenance under The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act,1986

Maintenance during the Iddat: The divorced woman is entitled to a reasonable and fair
amount of maintenance for herself only during the Iddat period from her former husband,
According to the section 3(1)(a). Hence, this clause restricts the time during which the
husband shall pay the maintenance.
Apart from this, she is to be paid (if not paid already) the dower or mehr agreed upon at the
time of solemnization as consideration for the marital contract. Lastly, she is entitled to
receive all properties gifted to her before, during or after marriage by her relatives, friends,
husband, his relatives, or friends.
Maintenance after the Iddat: The divorced woman who remains unmarried after the Iddat,
and is unable to maintain herself, is entitled to get maintenance from her such relatives who
would inherit her properties upon her death. In the absence of any such relatives or, where
they have no sufficient means, then ultimately the liability to maintain her is cast upon the
Waqf Board of the state in which she resides, under section 4(2) of the Muslim Women Act.

The Act was a shameful attempt to satisfy some protestors and nothing else. The Act
provided for maintenance only during the iddat period, which is three months after divorce,
but it is not sufficient to maintain her after the iddat. After said period, it states that
maintenance may be sought from her relatives who would inherit her property upon her
death, and in the absence of such relatives, she may approach the State Waqf board for her
maintenance. Further, no amount of money, either minimum or maximum has been specified
by the Act, apart from the words "fair and reasonable". The Act does not make provision for
maintenance of the woman for her entire life and only her properties gifted to her during or
after marriage are to be returned, which cannot be proved with certainty in any court of law.
The section by way of the non-obstante clause supersedes the Cr. PC and thus, after the Act

Intervention of High court

In Abid Ali v. Rasina Begum, court interpreted the section 3(1) of the Muslim Women Act,
1986 stating that the divorced women have right to claim maintenance only for the period of
iddat and not beyond that.

Further in the case of Usman Khan Bahamani v. Fathimunnisa Begum, the Andhra Pradesh
High Court also held that a Muslim woman is subject to maintenance only within the period
of iddat. The court interpreted the word “within” in section 3(1) of the Muslim Women Act
very narrowly. The court stated that a husband is only liable to fair and reasonable
maintenance within the iddat period and only for the iddat period.

In the case of A. A. Abdulla v. A. B. Mohmuna Saiyadbhai, the Gujarat High Court

interpreted the Muslim Women, that a divorced Muslim woman has the right to claim
maintenance from her husband for even beyond the iddat period. The Court further
interpreted the word “within” in section 3(1) of the Muslim Women Act more broadly, where
it was held that the husband must pay maintenance for the present and future of his divorced
wife even after the period of iddat and must pay it within the period of iddat.

In Danial Latifi v. Union of India [6], A writ was filed under section 32 of the Indian
constitution challenging the constitutionality of the Muslim Women Act. The court upheld
the validity of the Muslim Women Act and held that the said act is not violative of Articles
14, 15, and 21 of the Indian constitution. It sought to remedy the inconsistency between
Section 125 of CrPC and Section 3 of the Act one allowing the maintenance till after the
period of iddat while the other limiting it within.
The Supreme court said that the term “within” in section 3(1)(a) of the act (the maintenance)
asked to be read with “fair and reasonable within the terms of the impugned Act, thus
interpreting it as the maintenance is fair and reasonable it cannot be within the iddat period
and should exceed it and must be made within the iddat period.

It can be simply understood that the husband is to maintain the wife for the future also and
instead of giving the maintenance in parts he must give it before the commencement of the
iddat period. And thus, the liability of the husband is not limited to the iddat period making
the situation equitable.
The court in the present case has also laid stress on the preamble of the Muslim Women Act
which states that it is the goal of the present act to uplift the status of women and thus the
court has interpreted it in favour of women as in the case A. A. Abdulla v. A. B. Mohmuna
Saiyadbhai.

The court held - “the word 'provision' indicates that something is provided in advance for
meeting some needs. In other words, at the time of divorce, the Muslim husband is required
to contemplate the future needs and make preparatory arrangements in advance for meeting
those needs. Reasonable and fair provision may include provision for her residence, her food,
her clothes, and other articles. The expression "within" should be read as "during" or "for"
and this cannot be done because words cannot be construed contrary to their meaning as the
word "within" would mean "on or before", "not beyond" and, therefore, it was held that the
Act would mean that on or before the expiration of the iddat period, the husband is bound to
make and pay a maintenance to the wife”

The court held that the term “within” section 3(1) stands for ‘on’ or ‘before’ and not for
‘during’ or ‘for’.  Thus, the court is implying that the word within is used for the payment of
the maintenance and not for the determination of the amount of such maintenance. The
Supreme Court has rejected the narrow interpretation of section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh
High Court stating that as the motive or aim of the Muslim Women Act is to promote and
favour women, it is interpretation should be done respectively unless something contrary is
stated which is not the case in the present act.

Thus, the Supreme Court has interpreted in favour of the women. Thus, the Muslim Women
Act is held not to be violative of any of the fundamental rights and the appeal stands
dismissed 

In Iqbal Bano v. the State of UP, the Supreme Court has interpreted section 4 of the Muslim
Women Act under which the relatives have to maintain such divorced women after the iddat
period. The court has held that the reasonable and fair provision maintenance can only be
claimed against the former husband and not against the relatives.

In Shabana Bano v Imran Khan, a Muslim divorced woman can claim compensation
under section 125 of CrPC, after the expiry of iddat period also.